Subject: Aguilar's "Back of the Head" Witnesses - 13 (Revised) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:03:56 GMT From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams) Organization: Marquette University Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk Gary Aguilar claims to have examined the testimony of 46 witnesses to Kennedy's head wound, at both Parkland and Bethesda, and found that 44 of the 46 described the head wound as contradicting the photos and x-rays of the autopsy as they exist in the National Archives. So does Gary have 44 "back of the head" witnesses? Let's take one example: The following quotes from Aguilar are taken from: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm Let me warn the reader that Aguilar includes a lot of extraneous material, but I'm including it all so as not to be accused of "selectivity." ------------------------------------------- 5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry...believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (Emphasis added throughout) (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78. ---------------------------------------------- It should be obvious even from Aguilar's account that Perry was in no position to see a wound to the back of the head. Aguilar quotes him telling Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen...." Aguilar does this to stress "cerebellum," but Perry makes it clear that he had no way of seeing the back of the head blown out. There is no mention of examining the back of the head, or manipulating or lifting Kennedy's body. Rather he explicitly says that he "looked at the wound briefly by leaning over the table." But Aguilar *omits* a part of this passage that makes it even clearer that Perry did not examine the wound, and could not have seen the back of Kennedy's head blasted out. Let me quote the passage Aguilar used, and restore the part he omitted in ALL CAPS. ----------------------------------- I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen AND I DIDN'T INSPECT IT FURTHER. I JUST GLANCED AT IT AND I WENT ON OUTSIDE AND LATER WAS SUMMONED UP TO THE OPERATING ROOM TO HELP IN THE CARE OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY. ---------------------------------------------- Earlier in the interview, when Perry is talking about the tracheostomy incision, he notes that "I noticed the head injury, but I didn't examine it at the time." 7 HSCA 300. So here, as in the case of other doctors like McClelland, Aguilar claims that they testified to seeing the back of the head blown out, when according to their own testimony they could have seen no such thing. Either this is a serious inconsistency in their accounts, or, more likely, this is normal imprecision in language, were "back" simply means "posterior" which means anything behind the ears. And "occipital" means the back fifth of the head, as Grossman suggested to THE BOSTON GLOBE. Interestingly, both the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Ramsey Clark Panel said the entrance wound in the back of the head was "occipital," in spite of *explicitly* locating it in parietal bone. See: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm Where several of the other Parkland doctors are concerned, Aguilar extensively quotes interviews done in 1979 by Harry Livingstone and Ben Bradlee, Jr., the latter of the BOSTON GLOBE. But he doesn't reference the GLOBE concerning Perry. The problem is that the GLOBE, after contacting Perry, classified him as a witness who SUPPORTED the authenticity of the autopsy photos. Livingstone admits this in HIGH TREASON (p. 42). He assures us that the BOSTON GLOBE was mistaken, but can produce no testimony from Perry saying that the autopsy photos are forged. As for the "cerebellum" business: there was clearly some brain matter that the doctors *thought* was cerebellum. But Jenkins and Peters, for NOVA, said that they were simply mistaken about this. ----------------------------------- Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that...It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." ---------------------------------------------- My guess is that Perry had changed his mind about "cerebellum," and was surprised that McClelland had not changed his also. The key thing about interpreting Perry's testimony, however, is that he can't be a witness for something he couldn't have seen. And he couldn't have seen the back of the head blown out. .John The Kennedy Assassination Home Page http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm